On 1/6/26 12:47 PM, Ilya Maximets wrote: > On 1/6/26 11:32 AM, Dumitru Ceara wrote: >> On 1/5/26 4:51 PM, Ilya Maximets wrote: >>>>>> diff --git a/lib/meta-flow.xml b/lib/meta-flow.xml >>>>>> index 5c57ab08ff18..c996cddad341 100644 >>>>>> --- a/lib/meta-flow.xml >>>>>> +++ b/lib/meta-flow.xml >>>>>> @@ -2905,7 +2905,8 @@ actions=clone(load:0->NXM_OF_IN_PORT[],output:123) >>>>>> This is the first of several Open vSwitch registers, all of which >>>>>> have >>>>>> the same properties. Open vSwitch 1.1 introduced registers 0, 1, >>>>>> 2, and >>>>>> 3, version 1.3 added register 4, version 1.7 added registers 5, >>>>>> 6, and 7, >>>>>> - and version 2.6 added registers 8 through 15. >>>>>> + version 2.6 added registers 8 through 15 and version 3.7 added >>>>>> registers >>>>>> + 16 through 31. >>>>>> </field> >>>>>> <!-- XXX series --> >>>>>> <field id="MFF_REG1" title="Register 1" hidden="yes"/> >>>>>> @@ -2923,6 +2924,22 @@ actions=clone(load:0->NXM_OF_IN_PORT[],output:123) >>>>>> <field id="MFF_REG13" title="Register 13" hidden="yes"/> >>>>>> <field id="MFF_REG14" title="Register 14" hidden="yes"/> >>>>>> <field id="MFF_REG15" title="Register 15" hidden="yes"/> >>>>>> + <field id="MFF_REG16" title="Register 16" hidden="yes"/> >>>>>> + <field id="MFF_REG17" title="Register 17" hidden="yes"/> >>>>>> + <field id="MFF_REG18" title="Register 18" hidden="yes"/> >>>>>> + <field id="MFF_REG19" title="Register 19" hidden="yes"/> >>>>>> + <field id="MFF_REG20" title="Register 20" hidden="yes"/> >>>>>> + <field id="MFF_REG21" title="Register 21" hidden="yes"/> >>>>>> + <field id="MFF_REG22" title="Register 22" hidden="yes"/> >>>>>> + <field id="MFF_REG23" title="Register 23" hidden="yes"/> >>>>>> + <field id="MFF_REG24" title="Register 24" hidden="yes"/> >>>>>> + <field id="MFF_REG25" title="Register 25" hidden="yes"/> >>>>>> + <field id="MFF_REG26" title="Register 26" hidden="yes"/> >>>>>> + <field id="MFF_REG27" title="Register 27" hidden="yes"/> >>>>>> + <field id="MFF_REG28" title="Register 28" hidden="yes"/> >>>>>> + <field id="MFF_REG29" title="Register 29" hidden="yes"/> >>>>>> + <field id="MFF_REG30" title="Register 30" hidden="yes"/> >>>>>> + <field id="MFF_REG31" title="Register 31" hidden="yes"/> >>>>> The ovs-fields man page shows the REG0 as an exmaple, we probably need to >>>>> mention that new registers have a different class somehow, either by >>>>> showing >>>>> another example, or at least just stating what is the other class and for >>>>> which registers it is getting used. Same for the xxregs. >>>>> >>>> Would something like this work for you (I added a line to each type of >>>> register, including XREGs and XXREGs): >>>> >>>> diff --git a/lib/meta-flow.xml b/lib/meta-flow.xml >>>> index c996cddad341..ca6394b0685f 100644 >>>> --- a/lib/meta-flow.xml >>>> +++ b/lib/meta-flow.xml >>>> @@ -2902,11 +2902,19 @@ actions=clone(load:0->NXM_OF_IN_PORT[],output:123) >>>> </field> >>>> >>>> <field id="MFF_REG0" title="Register 0"> >>>> - This is the first of several Open vSwitch registers, all of which >>>> have >>>> - the same properties. Open vSwitch 1.1 introduced registers 0, 1, >>>> 2, and >>>> - 3, version 1.3 added register 4, version 1.7 added registers 5, 6, >>>> and 7, >>>> - version 2.6 added registers 8 through 15 and version 3.7 added >>>> registers >>>> - 16 through 31. >>>> + <p> >>>> + This is the first of several Open vSwitch registers, all of which >>>> have >>>> + the same properties. Open vSwitch 1.1 introduced registers 0, 1, >>>> 2, >>>> + and 3, version 1.3 added register 4, version 1.7 added registers >>>> 5, 6, >>>> + and 7, version 2.6 added registers 8 through 15 and version 3.7 >>>> added >>> nit: Missed the last time, but the oxford comma before the final 'and' seems >>> like something we should preserve. >>> >> >> I didn't even notice the comma it before you mentioned it. :) >> >> I'll re-add it and I'll also use it in the extended registers section. >> >>>> + registers 16 through 31. >>>> + </p> >>>> + >>>> + <p> >>>> + Registers 0 through 15 are defined using OXM the >>> "using OXM the" ? Sounds strange. >>> >>>> + <code>OFPXMC_NXM_1</code> class while registers 16 through 31 are >>>> + defined using the OXM <code>OFPXMC_EXPERIMENTER</code> class. >>> I think, it may be less confusing if we talk here in terms of code point >>> prefixes instead of OXM classes. Since we document OXM/NXM code points >>> here and 32-bit registers do not have OXM code points, mentioning the OXM >>> class may be hard to follow. Also, OFPXMC_EXPERIMENTER doesn't specify >>> which experimenter class is being used. >>> >>> Maybe something like "Code points for registers 0 through 15 are defined >>> within NXM_NX code point prefix, while regitsters 16 through 31 are >>> defined within NXOXM_ET, due to limited space within the NXM_NX class." > > One more thing here is maybe good to point out the first NXOXM_ET version > including the number inside the class, since they do not start with a zero, > e.g.: "... while registers 16 through 31 are defined within NXOXM_ET > starting with NXOXM_ET_REG16 (17), due to ..." > The docs seem a little more complete this way. Not sure. >
Ack, I incorporated this suggestion too, took care of all the other comments you had and posted v2: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/openvswitch/patch/[email protected]/ I'll have to be honest and say that updating the ovs-ofctl.at tests was not a very pleasant experience. :) I'm not sure if I missed anything there, hopefully now we cover all the things you had in mind. Regards, Dumitru _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
